Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E)

651 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 78 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Simmons v. Ghent
  970 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-10 ·cited 2×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  A timely filed motion to reconsider suspends the time for filing a notice of appeal, but the motion itself must be served within the ten-day period to be effective. A notice of appeal filed before a timely served motion is decided is premature.
• Figgie Int'l v. Miller
  966 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment and amend its complaint.
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop. With THE Bldg.
  964 F.2d 1244· 1st Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 2×
  A district court cannot enlarge a forfeiture order to include property not specifically identified in the original complaint, as this violates the particularity requirements of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules.
• Nelson v. City Colleges OF Chicago
  962 F.2d 754· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a client's failure to monitor litigation and demonstrate diligence prevents relief under Rule 60(b), even if former counsel was grossly negligent.
• Advey v. The Celotex Corp.
  962 F.2d 1177· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  A notice of appeal filed during the pendency of a Rule 59(e) motion in one of two consolidated cases is a nullity as to that case, but not necessarily as to the other case if the parties and issues are not sufficiently merged.
• Harborside Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. Vogel
  959 F.2d 368· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the buyer's complaint, finding the buyer's delay reasonable and entitled to the original contract terms.
• United States Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Gurnee Inns, Inc.
  956 F.2d 146· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's appeal was timely because the district court's ambiguous order extending time to comply did not clearly deny a motion to reconsider the award of postjudgment interest, thus tolling the appeal period. The court also held that back pay awards, ev
• Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Milwaukee v. Alberts
  937 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction enforcing surety rights of exoneration and quia timet was improvidently granted because the surety failed to establish irreparable harm flowing solely from the loss of those rights.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Louisville v. Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago
  933 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Continental did not breach its contractual duties to First National by attempting to amend the loan agreement without unanimous consent, as the amendment was a nullity and caused no harm, and First National was not entitled to attorney's fees.
• Twin City Constr. Co. OF Fargo v. Turtle Mountain Band OF Chippewa Indians through its Chairman
  911 F.2d 137· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to entirely dissolve an injunction that prohibited tribal court proceedings, given a subsequent amendment to the tribal code that provided a jurisdictional basis for the tribal court.
• Santiago v. Mrs. Blanche Wood
  904 F.2d 673· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a pro se plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add the proper defendant after summary judgment was granted, especially since the proper defendant had notice and would not be prejudiced.
• Birdsong v. Wrotenbery
  901 F.2d 1270· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 2×
  A post-judgment motion to clarify a judgment that alters its scope is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion, requiring a new notice of appeal to maintain appellate jurisdiction.
• Vukadinovich v. McCARTHY
  901 F.2d 1439· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a Monell claim for deliberate indifference to training or inadequate investigation, and that his other claims were procedurally barred or without merit.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Erection Co., Inc.
  900 F.2d 168· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that a district court must articulate its reasoning and findings when sealing a consent decree to allow for appellate review.
• Union Switch & Signal Div. Am. Standard Inc. v. United Elec.
  900 F.2d 608· 3d Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it had "prudential" jurisdiction to review a non-final award of an arbitrator under § 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, despite a prior conflicting precedent.
• In re Champion
  895 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the denial of a temporary restraining order and the dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal, but summarily affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate that dismissal.
• United States v. Wood
  877 F.2d 453· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the Government was a third-party creditor beneficiary to the property settlement agreement and could enforce Ms. Wood's promise to pay her husband's tax liability. The court also reversed in part, ordering a credit against the judgment for funds held by a rece
• Steuart v. Suskie
  867 F.2d 1148· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the former employee failed to state a constitutional claim for damages against HUD officials, and thus the district court correctly dismissed the Bivens claim.
• Leo M. Mullen, M.D. v. Household Bank-Federal Sav. Bank
  867 F.2d 586· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint because the proposed amendments were futile, and affirmed the dismissal of the appeal as frivolous, remanding for sanctions.
• Emerson Emory v. Secretary of the Navy
  819 F.2d 291· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims of constitutional violations arising from military promotion decisions, even if the promotion process itself is reserved to the executive and legislative branches.
• Guiseppina Musacchia Luciano Girard v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.
  807 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely filed motion to alter or amend the judgment is a nullity.
• Knowles v. The Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  788 F.2d 1038· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a magistrate did not err in striking a jury's answer regarding conditional delivery due to unfair surprise and in entering judgment for the plaintiff based on the agent's apparent authority to accept a postdated check.
• Elba Alvarado Aviles v. Burgos
  783 F.2d 270· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-31 ·cited 2×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that the district court erred in determining co-primary coverage based on the Puerto Rico permissive use statute, as the lease agreement and policy language dictated the insurance obligations. The court also corrected calculation errors in the amended judgment.
• In re Nicholson v. Nicholson
  779 F.2d 514· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous, and therefore, its reformation of the trustee's deed was an abuse of discretion.
• Caribbean Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. OF Fla.
  754 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contract for a general agent's appointment in Puerto Rico is void if the agent lacks the required license, and a party cannot belatedly change their legal theory to avoid this consequence.
• League OF Women Voters OF Cal. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  751 F.2d 986· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an appeal from a district court's order denying attorney fees is properly brought to the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even when a related appeal concerning the constitutionality of a federal statute is taken directly to the Supreme Court under 28 U
• Windsor v. The United States Dep't OF Just.
  740 F.2d 6· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment because the appellant had no protected employment rights.
• Cipriano v. State OF R.I.
  738 F.2d 535· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants were foreclosed from attacking the district court's amendment of the judgment because their counsel had agreed to the procedure for correcting the perceived inconsistency in the jury verdicts.
• Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Carpenter
  648 F.2d 919· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion for rehearing solely on the grounds of untimely filing and service.
• Adams v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Putnam County)
  2016 WL 6037535· M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no manifest error of law or fact in its prior denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Voo-Doo Daddy Prods., LLC v. Colorblind Media, LLC
  2010 WL 2985654· M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-13 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice in the prior dismissal of its claims.
• Stansell v. Samark Jose Lopez Bello
  40 F.4th 1308· 11th Cir.· 2022-07-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the judgment under Rule 60(a) because the requested correction was not clerical and would affect substantial rights.
• Molbogot v. MarineMax E., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-07-11 ·cited 1×
  Molbogot purchased a new boat from MarineMax after a salesman allegedly misrepresented and concealed defects in the generator and trim tabs, including not disclosing that the generator needed a controller replacement before the sale. The court denied both parties' cross-motions f
• Alcegaire v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't Of Corr.
  2022 WL 610584· M.D. Fla.· 2022-07-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration must identify manifest errors of law or fact, and that a motion for appointment of federal habeas counsel requires exhaustion of state remedies, with limited exceptions not met here.
• Locke v. Warren
  2019 WL 1227968· S.D. Fla.· 2020-05-05 ·cited 1×
  A district court, after a timely Rule 59(e) motion, can correct errors not raised by the movant, especially when the correction benefits the movant.
• Bragg v. Chevrolet
  245 F. Supp. 2d 1235· M.D. Fla.· 2003-02-14 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the motion for rehearing, affirming its prior dismissal of TILA claims because the transactions were not consummated under Florida law, and struck an untimely motion to intervene.
• Manning v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  28 F. Supp. 2d 1353· M.D. Fla.· 1998-12-04 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the defendants' motion to alter or amend the judgment, treating it as a motion for clarification, and clarified that the defendants have an ongoing obligation to affirmatively desegregate the school system and provide proof of their efforts.
• Marine Midland Bank v. Slyman
  995 F.2d 362· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that res judicata barred the Slymans' affirmative defense regarding collateral disposition, but not their counterclaims for personal damages arising from Marine's management of Accurate's affairs.
• Northrop Corp. v. AIL Sys., Inc.
  959 F.2d 1424· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a contract dispute between two private defense contractors over a teaming agreement does not implicate a uniquely federal interest sufficient to invoke federal common law jurisdiction.
• Murray W. Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc.
  709 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the speech or debate privilege protects questions about a former Congressman's sources of information, but not questions about republication of material outside Congress. The court also affirmed the denial of sanctions.
• Goldenberg v. Warden Heuett
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-12
  The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and the petitioner's arguments regarding futility and post-filing exhaustion were unpersuasive.
• Pridgen v. US Bank Tr. Nat'l Ass'n
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-13
  The court held that while the plaintiff's motion for an extension was untimely, her miscalculation of the deadline and delayed receipt of the order constituted excusable neglect under Rule 60(b), warranting relief from the final judgment.
• Jardim v. Paez
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-07
  The court denied the respondent's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding no legal basis for reconsideration or a stay.
• Jardim v. Paez
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-03
  The court denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration and stay of the order returning the children to Venezuela, but subsequently stayed the return order due to an FAA flight ban.
• The Doc App, Inc. v. Leafwell, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-29
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration of sanctions, allowing counsel to complete CLE remotely but upholding other sanctions.
• Ward v. M/Y Utopia IV
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-29
  The court held that when a jury award contains an identifiable amount not permitted by law, the court may modify the verdict without offering a new trial, as this is a correction of legal error, not a traditional remittitur.
• Edwards v. Chronister
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-17
  A pro se plaintiff cannot seek reconsideration of a voluntary dismissal under Rule 59(e) when no judgment was entered, and a Rule 60(b) motion is untimely and lacks valid grounds.
• U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n For Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB 2005-11 v. Myers
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04
  The court granted the defendant's motion to proceed pro se but denied his motion to alter or amend the judgment awarding attorney fees.
• Marvel Tech. (China) v. The Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-25
  The court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration, finding no clear error in its prior summary judgment order regarding patent infringement.
• Hatten v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding that the motion did not present grounds for reconsideration and that the underlying claims were frivolous.